Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 9

Archive

 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/ Archive 1
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/ Archive 2
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 3
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 4
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 5
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 6
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 7
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 8

See Archive 8 for text before this time stamp Philip Baird Shearer 02:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once more: Strafing of civilians
I refer to the debate mainly between Slim Virgin and Noel on February 27-28, last archive, on strafing of civilians. You were looking for a historian who might give credibility to memory reports of eye witnesses: such as the little 8-year-old girl in that late report whose link Get-back-world-respect posted.

Well, there is one: Götz Bergander himself ("Dresden im Luftkrieg" p. 192-209) has looked for and sorted out credible eye witnesses. He points out that no one of them saw or heard of a massive organized attack of many planes strafing civilians on purpose. He explicitly refutes the Nazi legends of such attacks: They were simply impossible in the night of February 13 and not reported for February 15. Those reported for the February 14 day raids took place 170 kilometers beyond Dresden on the way towards Prague; Bergander prooves that as fact in detail.

But also he gives credit to eyewitnesses who saw, heard and experienced single planes shoot with machine guns near the ground only on February 14, 1945. He explains these experiences as probable facts which were misinterpreted as directly aimed shooting. Single Planes - one, two, three at the most - were flying low above fleeing survivors of the bombings, fighting with German planes and therefore shooting with their machine guns; people had the impression they were shooting at them. So not all of their memories must have been late "legends" or "myths", only false interpreted perceptions because of their traumatized situation at that time. - That´s the only reason we left the link of that woman´s report in the article, but cited Berganders explanation of her perceptions, which preceeds those of Helmut Schnatz and Frederick Taylor.

Hope this makes this issue more clear. Greetings, Jesusfreund --217.229.122.67 20:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Allied experiences of the attack
There are anecdotes of the pilots and crew having problems years later. Where can one find them? No footnote or link seems to be given on that so far. --217.229.122.67 20:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

George Bell
You mention the bishop but his link in the article leads to that famous baseball player...;-) Good not to loose your sense of humor in this tough subject.

Two of our German Dresden authors, me one of them, have written an article on Bell recently: I would like to offer it to you English wikipedians. Can someone put it in the translation request list for me? Thanks a lot. No time to translate it myself, sorry! --217.229.122.67 20:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the article should mention Bells first public criticism of area bombing. As far as I know he already denied it in sermons before the war in 1939; and in the House of Lords he spoke against it February 1943, one year before his bestknown debate in 1944.
 * The article also should point out his arguing then: I believe Bell refered to the targetting of civilians thus applying the criteria of La Haague peace agreements (from 1907 on) and the Church criteria of a "just war". This argument was uttered in public, while Bells knowledge of the plans of German Anti-Hitler-conspiracies was uttered in letters to Anthony Eden, later and secondary to those debates. He did not reject and deny area bombing for any military or strategic reasons but for the sake of humanity and civilization itself. Jesusfreund 08:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I put the informations in now. Jesusfreund 12:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Bombing Holocaust"
As far as I know,
 * the leader of the "Nationaldemocratic Party of Germany", Holger Apfel, in his speech in January 2005 did not use the term "Dresden holocaust", but "bombing holocaust".
 * This term is used not by single Neonazi leaders only but has evolved to be a widespread propaganda term in German right wing media and groups.
 * The three parties which are considered to be "right extremists" by German state officials were all supporting the recent Neonazi gathering which used the term as a motto.
 * Historians like Friedrich who use unreflected speech ("mass extermination", "crematoria", "murderous bombing plans", "annihilation" etc.) support their view, can be abused and are abused by them. --217.83.37.136 21:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bomb Tonnage
Later on 14th from 12:17 until 12:30 311 American B-17s dropped 771 tons of bombs on Dresden, with the railway yards as their aiming point.

This tonnage (711) is almost certainly wrong in that it seems to have been calculated on a B-17 load of 4,500lb on the assumption that that was the load carried to Dresden. Whilst 3,500 - 4,500lb (depending on the differing distances of the airfields in the UK from the target) was the load a B-17 could carry to Berlin, the loads to Dresden where actually down to aproximately 1,500lb per-aircraft, due to the much greater distance involved, which would make the actual figure something like 233 US tons. The British figures are about right and work-out at an individual Lancaster load of about 7,500lb to Dresden, which is also down from the Berlin figure, again due to the greater distance involved - more petrol needed for the greater distance (the RAF raid on Dresden was a nine-hour round trip, as opposed to a six-hour one to Berlin and back) so lower bomb load carried.

Also, when comparing published USAF/RAF bomb tonnage figures bear in mind that US figures are given in US (2000lb) tons and British in Imperial (2,240lb) tons - many, even 'official', US sources get this wrong. And if anyone wants to calculate the fuel loads then they might also like to allow for the fact that US fuel figures are in US gallons and RAF figures in Imperial gallons, which are %20 larger than US gallons.

BTW, as regards the Mustangs strafing people on the ground after the US raids try reading Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut, as he was there at the time. I read it years ago and seem to remember him mentioning it, but I may be wrong.

194.6.112.192 13:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 311 B17's dropping 771 tones comes from RAF website. USAF Historical Studies Institute Air University states "Nevertheless, as a matter of record, the following is an authoritative tabulation of all Allied bombings of Dresden" and qutoes the following sources: "Statistics on 8th Air Force bombing from Eighth Air Force Target Summary, Period 17 August 1942 thru 8 May 1945, p. 20. Supporting Document No. 1, Statistics on RAF Bomber Command bombing from Allied Air Attacks Against Targets in Dresden, Headquarters, United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe, Office of the Commanding General, p 1. Supporting Document No. 2." It states that the figure was 316 B-17s dropped 487.7 tons of H/E and 294.3 tons of incediaries. A total of 782 for the mid-day raid. Some may have been on the secondary target, which would explain the 311 to 316 diffrence and the difference in tonnage which per plane works out about the same from both sources.


 * On page 365 of "Dresden Tuesday 13 Feb 1945" by F Taylor, he states that the USAAF planned to use used 678.3 tones of HE and 400 tones of incendiaries, not all were dropped on Dresden but those that were, were in the same ratio.


 * I think all that can be said has been said on strafing:
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 3
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 5
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 8
 * 


 * --Philip Baird Shearer 15:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David Irving
I have reverted the edits on Irving again. Here are the reasons why.

David Irving should not be called an historian. "Justice Charles Gray, the trial judge, at Irving's 1998, libel  suit  said
 * Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

None of Irving historical facts can be trusted. Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge says in (http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/evidence/evans006.asp) this about Irving:
 * Parg 10:Irving’s claim to be a scrupulous historian is completely bogus.
 * Parg 21:Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about.

In "The Bombing of Dresden in 1945" (http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/evidence/evans005.asp#5.2), by Richard J. Evans, which is a detailed critique of problems with David Irving's book. He writes:
 * ''3. Irving’s own estimates of the numbers of dead  have varied widely over time, and have changed from one edition of his book to the next and in his public speeches:


 * ''In the 1966 edition of The Destruction of Dresden the triple blow was ‘estimated authoritatively to have killed more than 135,000 of the population...’, but the ‘documentation suggests very strongly that the figure was certainly between a minimum of 100,000 and a maximum of 250,000.’


 * ''In the 1971 edition the triple blow was ‘estimated authoritatively to have killed more than 100,000 of the population...’


 * ''In 1989 Irving told journalists whilst launching the ‘Leuchter Report’ in Britain that: ‘There were one million refugees in the streets of Dresden at the time that we burned Dresden to the ground, killing anything between 100,000 and 250,000 of them.’


 * ''In 1992 Irving told the Institute of Historical Review that ‘a hundred thousand people were killed [in Dresden] in a period of twelve hours by the British and Americans.’


 * ''In 1993, in a publicity video made for the Australian public, Irving stated that ‘over 130,000 people died in that particular air raid.’


 * ''In the 1995 edition of The Destruction of Dresden the figure was no longer authoritative and the attack had ‘cost the lives of between fifty and one hundred thousand inhabitants....’ Elsewhere he dropped the lower figure and said the attack cost ‘up to a hundred thousand people their lives.’


 * ''In 1996 Irving had changed this figure yet again in his Goebbels: The Mastermind of the ‘Third Reich’, where he notes of the Dresden raids that ‘Between sixty and one hundred thousand people were choked to death or burned alive...’


 * ''4. As will be demonstrated, these erratic fluctuations in Irving’s figures are entirely arbitrary and have never accorded to the changing state of research (either his own or that of others) into the Dresden death roll. The only consistency in his figures is that they have resolutely remained far in excess of the most reliable and agreed figures (i.e. those based on the most solid research and which command the most general assent). We shall now see how he has arrived at these inflated estimates, and what evidence that they are indeed far above the likely number.

As many people where taken in by Irving's "research" about Dresden, this needs highlighting in this article. If there is an historian with a credible international reputation, who has published figures in the last 15 years, which agree Irving's figures that do not include his Times letter revisions, then they can be quoted as a possible source for Encarta and Columbia Encyclopaedias if not then the sentence should remain as is because it highlights the likely unreliable source for the figure of 135,000. Philip Baird Shearer 19:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You haven't addressed my reasons for removing the bits about Irving.


 * You claimed that Encarta/Colombia were citing Irving. This is not true. Irving's estimates previously went as high as 250,000, twice what you say is 'more in line with.'


 * His version of the Dresden bombing has nothing to do with his being a holocaust denier. The comment in the article is ad hominem and non-sequiter. The paragraph in question is supposed to be about the estimated amount of people dead but instead it ends with a jab at Irving.


 * You or whoever wrote this clearly had a bone to pick with David Irving; I suggest you take it to Talk:David Irving.

Yeago 23:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not know the history of this little dispute here; but as far as I can see the article is completely correct in saying where the higher estimates came from and why they are not reliable and credible at all. Of course it has to be mentioned that Irvings high estimates have been proved wrong and that there was a "controversy" about them.
 * If the article states Irving is a "controversial figure" I believe it is a euphemism refering to his trial in the sixties without making it a theme for itself, just giving a hint for the footnote. But then I think if you mention Irving at all you should tell the reader who he is: not a historian but a convicted lyar and holocaust denier, period. Nothing controversial about that, is it?
 * But probably this has been discussed already again and again. So excuse my interference. Jesusfreund 07:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The gist is that high estimates have come from many people, not just David Irving. The article currently says that biased figures tend to have higher estimates. I think this is adequate and I found references to Irving is irrelevent and distracting, not to mention ad hominem.


 * I didn't write 'controversial figure' with his trial of the sixties in mind. I don't even know about it. Phillip took issue with my calling him a 'disputed historian,' so I went to the Irving article and found tons of dispute over what to call the guy at all. 'Figure' appeared the most neutral.Yeago 17:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * PS: Of course the "estimations" of high victim numbers of Dresden raids have to do with the holocaust denial: Irving was always far more interested in possible crimes of the Allied than those of the Nazis, and so these numbers were useful to him. This is not "a bone to pick" against a person; it´s the exact connection between these issues established by that person itself. And therefor both issues - Dresden and Holocaust - were investigated in his trial, weren´t they? - But you are right, this article should concentrate on Dresden. And Irving lied on Dresden because he couldn´t give reliable sources for his estimations. And he lied again because he used higher figures without source again after he had been proved wrong. So even if the article would state he is a convicted lyar it would be totally in line with NPOV. Jesusfreund 07:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Establishing the case for David Irving's bias is the job of David Irving, in my opinion. I think it is enough to say he's disputable. The article already chunks him in with Joseph Goebbels! What more do you want?


 * Why not start a section 'David Irving on Dresden'? But before you do, remember the topic ends with him retracting his estimates. So what's the point of all of this? I'm sure plenty of estimates were retracted in light of new evidence, just as the early Sept. 11th attack estimates of 20,000 were retracted.Yeago 17:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is that your ordering of the information suggests that the 135,000 of Encarta and Columbia is somehow a legitimate number. I have already asked you to provide a source other than Irving (or an author using Irving's numbers) who has come up with such a number.


 * Oh, I can definitely see how it can be read as that, although that was not my intention. It is not upon me to 'prove' where Encarta got their figures. I have no earthly idea. The burden is more on you to prove they got them from Irving. Please change the order, I think you're right about how the order sounds.Yeago 20:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you can not then it should be pointed out that this is a discredited number from a discredited source (As it did before). As for your statement "I'm sure plenty of estimates were retracted in light of new evidence". He retracted his higher figure in a letter to the Times in the 1960s, but despite this he has repeatedly stated higher figures since (see above). If he had not repeated the higher figures after his letter to the Times, I could agree which you implication, but he has not and he has been found IN COURT to be someone "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". That is not the same thing as the retraction of "early Sept. 11th attack estimates". It would only be the same if someone was to agree that the figure of 20,000 was incorrect and then afterwards keep using the number of 20,000 it as if it were true for propaganda purposes.


 * Wonderful content for David Irving.Yeago 20:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW The court case was in 1999/2000 not in the 1960s. Irving's libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, and her publisher Penguin Books, was launched in 1998. Irving chose to bring the case in England where the burden of proof is on the defendant, and not, as in most Western jurisdictions, on the plaintiff. That he did not win his case shows how overwhelming the evidence is against him. Given "that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist", I am supprised that you wish to use a POV phrase like "a controversial figure" to describe him. Why do you? -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to think I'm trying to defend David Irving. I really think his stuff is crap. I read some of his Goebbel's biography and found it contrived. I think references to him in this article distract from the topic at hand. Nobody doubts his bias--I think a discussion of this bias should be contained to David Irving where a full account can be given. When I discovered the article, I found that it went out of its way to bash Irving. You had a problem with calling him 'Historian,' which is debatable (but its not a battle field I am going to die on).Yeago 20:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The figure of 135,000 comes from Irving's very popular book on the Bombing of Dresden in 1963 called "The Destruction of Dresden" estimated "authoritatively to have killed more than 135,000 of the population...". [My bolding of the word authoritatively]. He republished the figures in the 1966 edition despite the letter to the Times on July 7, 1966 which was about this "authoritative" figure. To the best of my knowledge he has never retracted the information published in the Times. Indeed it is on his web site under the title of History and the Dresden air raids 1945. Up until 1990 the figure 135,000 was reproduced in many other publications because they had no reason to doubt that although Irving my have had right wing views that his research was not accurate. For example Norman Longmate in "The Bombers" pub 1983 says on page 341 "This is in line with the figure of 135,000 suggested by David Irving, the British historian of the raid, which, though sometimes challenged since, remains the best estimate available". So unless you supply a published source in the last 15 years from any professional historian who agrees with the figure please do not remove the information that the figure of 135,000 is from Irving and it is a retracted figure. If you do not allow that connection you are being duped into supporting an Irving attempt to use the Nazi big lie propaganda technique (Do a web search on [Dresden and 135,000]). If you can come up with another source independent of Irving's research which uses the figure then of course we can revisit the sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Holocaust"
I changed this sentence:
 * Since 1945, the word "holocaust" has been taken over by another meaning but it is quite clear that within the meaning of the word as it was in 1945, the results of bombing in several German cities were holocausts; as had been those elsewhere, from Stalingrad to Coventry and Guernica.

I think an explanation of the word´s own meaning does not justify this statement. "Holocaust" by itself means something like "whole offering". It may have been used for carpet bombing somewhere, but "it is quite clear" is not true. The use of "Holocaust" is related to genocide (crime against humanity), and none of the given examples were genocides by definition. War crimes, yes, disputable as it is disputed in the article. The goal of that kind of warfare was surely to destroy infrastructure and a lot of lives, be it on purpose or not; so call it "mass killing" or "mass destruction". The use of the term "Holocaust" in connection to Dresden raids is related to Neonazi and right wing purposes only. Jesusfreund 12:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point of what I wrote was to the effect that this use of the word holocaust to mean genocide is modern, developed after February 1945. The people concerned with the Dresden raids knew nothing of it. The original meaning of holocaust was a thorough burning. This, it seems to me, adequately describes what happened in places like Hamburg and Dresden. It is true that the word had, in antiquity, become associated with religious service and that this service had been expressed by the destruction of something or someone, at some kind of altar, commonly by fire. However, this, like the genocide association, is a later slant on the original and basic meaning of the word. This basic meaning would have been understood by educated European people in 1945. Those who had received what was regarded as a good education could read classical Greek. (In case it needs pointing out, that is what holocaust, ‘’&#972;&#955;&#959;&#954;&#965;&#963;&#964;&#972;&#962;’’ is.)

If people such as Jesusfreund, with the benefit of hindsight, so thoroughly miss the point that the planners of the Dresden raids were conditioned by their upbringing and life-experience, as we are by ours, how on earth can we expect the people of sixty years ago to have anticipated our responses to their efforts. (RJP 09:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC))


 * Words change their meaning over time. To use the word "holocaust" in this article does not bring clarity and it is likely to confuse many readers who do not have your classical education. If the original meaning of holocast was clear the word firestorm would not have been coined Philip Baird Shearer 11:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

sources on paragraphs

 * Although the Allies considered Dresden (the capital of the German state of Saxony) a military target, several historians regard Dresden more as a cultural landmark than anything else and assert that the number of civilians killed was excessive to a criminal degree.

There is no source on this sentence. The "Several historians" with sources should be included in the notes section or the paragraph should be removed as it is covered by the Taylor quote in the next paragraph.


 * Some of the critics of the bombing of Dresden argue that there should have been prosecutions brought against RAF Bomber Commander Arthur Harris, and even Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These critics argue that if Japan and Germany had won the war, bombings like that of Dresden would certainly have been prosecuted as a war crime. They argue that bombing of German cities was intended as a deliberate strategy to terrorize the German people not only to win the war, but also in preparation for the post-war occupation. In fact, no alleged war crimes of the Allies were ever tried after World War II.

This paragraph uses weasel words and has no source. Unless one can be found I suggest it is removed. -- Philip Baird Shearer 06:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. If there is a source for that opinion, first sentence may perhaps stay, I think.
 * If you think about the meaning of the second sentence the logics seem to be: Only the winners decide what is prosecuted, what not (Joerg Friedrich indeed has argued that way).
 * But doesn´t that mean it should have been prosecuted because the Germans would have done that in case of winning? What kind of reasoning is that? Shouldn´t it be prosecuted by our own ethical standards and laws?
 * Third sentence: What had "moral bombing" to do with the occupation? Demoralized people - easier to handle? Is that the case? Who said that?
 * Last sentence seems to be true, but where does it belong to then? Jesusfreund 03:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Why name only three individuals? In Britain, the Cabinet makes collective decisions therefore if Churchill was guilty so were the rest of the Cabinet. Even if one does not wish to contemplate putting the whole of the British Cabinet on trial then as the minister directly responsible for the Royal Air Force Archibald Sinclair must have more responsibility than Churchill. Why name Arthur Harris and not his immediate superior (Charles Portal) or any of those directly under his command? If Harris is to be named why not his American equivalent Jimmy Doolittle (a Medal of Honor holder)?. If a war crime had been committed then all the people who ordered it and all those who participated were guilty of committing a war crime.


 * It is speculative to say "If Japan and Germany had won the war". To suggest that one could expect any form of justice from Nazi regime knowing what they instigated would be laughable if the results had not been so tragic.


 * It needs a source that the bombing of Dresden was done to "terrorize the German people not only to win the war". In all the sources used in the section "Reasons for the attack" that is not given as one of the targeting considerations. By February 1945 the Allies did not expect bombing to terrorise the Germans into surrender. That bolt had been shot with the failure of Operation Gomorrah and the failure of Battle of Berlin (air). Secondly the attempt to "terrorize" of the German people earlier in the war had been attempted to shorten the war, not as an aim in its self outside the war aims. In fact the aim had never been to terrorize but to weaken the German war effort:
 * a) it is difficult to concentrate fully on the war production job when one is looking for new accommodation etc
 * b) It is unnerving for soldiers at the front to learn that they can not defend their cities and that their civilian friends and relations are being killed.
 * c) If Berlin was bombed Goering boasted "You may call me Meyer". Bombing helped to destroy some of the myths which the Nazi propaganda machine put out. Particularly the one which said that war happened outside Germany.
 * Just because no allied person was tried for a war crimes does not mean that assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory was a war crime. It is a fact that as no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that the bombing of Dresden constituted a war crime. Philip Baird Shearer 10:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Both the view that Dresden's bombing was a war crime, and the view that there should have been prosecutions for it, even if it did not rise to that level, are strongly disputed. Critics of both views argue the necessities of war, and the danger and horror of the Nazi regime were reasons for the attacks. They further argue that even if the bombing of Dresden did violate the laws of war against excessive civilian casualties, that military decisions about where and when to attack were not prosecuted at war crimes trials after World War II, and therefore the bombing of Dresden should not have been prosecuted either, since it is a decision of the same type.

This paragraph is about area bombing in general not about Dresden. The decisions why targeted by the Allies are laid out in "Reasons for the attack". There is no source for the "critics" that argue that assault by aerial bombardment on Dresden was a war crime but justified by the necessities of war. Is the any source for Dresedn casualuties were excessive and if they were excessive a for the treaty that in 1945 specified that "excessive civilian casualties" created during caused during assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory was a treaty violation. If not then this paragraph should be removed. Philip Baird Shearer 10:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The controversy over area bombing
I want to remove this section because although it would make an interesting article in itself it is not directly relevent to Dresden. The website which is used for the following quote: http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/heroesvillains/churchill/churchill_3.htm: The purpose of the area bombing of cities was laid out in a British Air Staff paper, dated September 23, 1941:
 * "The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death."

Also has this one: http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/heroesvillains/Images/ch3_sr4.JPG

By 1945 the RAF directives about area bombing earlier in the war had been superceeded by several more recent directives like:
 * 10 June 1943 the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued a directive to RAF and USAAF on the POINTBLANK plan for destruction of the German aircraft industry.
 * 16 September 1944 combined Chiefs of Staff directive "OCTAGON 29", that stated the primary objective to be
 * "the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic systems and the direct support of land and naval forces."

Which are both mentioned in passing in the first section "Reasons for the attack".

By 1945 It is not true to say that "ultimate aim of an attack on [the Dresden]] area [was] to break the morale of the population which occupies it" was not true. The Primary reason is listed in the first section "Reasons for the attack":
 * The Air Staff have now arranged that, subject to the overriding claims of attacks on enemy oil production and other approved target systems within the current directive, available effort should be directed against Berlin, Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig or against other cities where severe bombing would not only destroy communications vital to the evacuation from the east, but would also hamper the movement of troops from the west

The information on Bishop George Bell is interesting and I have copied it into the article on him, but Bishop Bell made his 1945 speech( 24 hours?) before the Dresden raid the MP who was most influential in criticising the bombing of Dresden was Richard Stokes as is mentioned in another section.

So unless anyone has good reasons for not deleting this section I will remove it in a day or so. Philip Baird Shearer 17:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It´s not up to me to make a decision, but I think you removed too many aspects of the controversy in Britain at the time. It is not true that Bell spoke only shortly before the attacks, and this was not the information given in the article either before you removed the whole section.
 * And his influence - well, he had none on the military strategy, of course, but he had some on public opinion. As a main leader of Anglican church he represented part of churchs position on aireal bombing. Of course, other bishops did not appreciate his opposition to it.
 * And if others like Richard Stokes were more influential, why not mention there position also? I think the rare votes in the House of Lords and Commons against these kind of raids and their reasoning should find acknowledgment here; otherwise you support the isolated military approach to look at the issue too much. Just my two cents. Jesusfreund 07:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Richard Stokes is mentioned in the section British "Responses to the bombing". This is an article about the Bombing of Dresden. Not an article on the earlier RAF campaign of area bombing. I agree that Bell did not only speak shortly before the the attacks he had been doing it for a long time. But as far as I know it was Stokes and not Bell who spoke after the Bombing of Dresden and influenced other people. As this is an article about the bombing of Dresden not about area bombing in general, Bell is not directly relevant to this article.

Slightly off topic for this article:
 * That Bell, Stokes and Salter consistently spoke out about area bombing, is less than a handfull of MPs. Bell was one of twenty-six Anglican bishops who sit in the House of Lords (Lords Spiritual) and he was not a senior bishop (Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester). Do not get drawn in by Goebbels's propaganda that the London based "Bombing Restrictions Committee" represented a substantial part of British public opinion. During the war the vast majority of the British people were in favour of bombing the Germans. They thought it was helping to shorten the war, and as that was seen as a way to save British lives, they supported it. Further after the Blitz and with V1 and V2 still landing around the clock in London, most British hearts were hardened against any sympathy for German civilians, particularly as they were under the illusion that what the RAF was dishing out was similar to that of the Luftwaffe during the Blitz. Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning of Goebbels propaganda; emphasizing the rare opposition voters at the time is not meant to support that, of course. Don´t get drawn in that kind of logics. Bell and Stokes probably were among the most decisive anti-Nazis. What makes them relevant is exactly their minority position which keeps up the ethical debate about the righteousness of bombing civilians - raising the question, if anything is allowed in a defensive war against a totalitarian and absolutely criminal regime. This question has to be raised even if 99,9% of public opinion would have answered: "YES, mass killing is necessary and justified." This general thinking, by the way, is the strongest support for the total victory of immorality in war which the Nazis pushed. The few opposers who kept ties to German resistors and made a difference between civilians and Nazi regime - even though German civilians mostly weren´t able to make that difference themselves - could turn out to be the solid ground on which reconciliation can be built afterwards. It was churches work after 1945 which started healing the wounds between Dresden and Coventry f.e.; and it was the link between church doctrine of a just war and La Haague criteria of a legal war in 1907 Bell referred to in his speeches of 1943 which might make him relevant to this article. It´s not only the responses, it´s the predictors and warners who are important to this issue, I think. But if you discuss that at Aireal warfare in general, OK. Perhaps a short essence of that debate should be integrated here, though. Jesusfreund 11:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

International law in 1945
I have removed this section and replaced it with a paragraph in the section "The case against the bombing being a war crime". The paragraph includes a link to Area bombardment which is a verbatum copy of the section removed here. Philip Baird Shearer 14:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

FAC potential
This is close to FA. It justs needs a proper Lead and quotations should be moved to Wikiquote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

What does "quotations should be moved to Wikiquote" mean? Philip Baird Shearer 19:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't point to a specific rule, but it is a common FAC objection. I have yet to see a FA article heavy on quotes (and this one IS). The usual thing to do is to incorporate info in the article, and move all quotes and citiations off to Wikiquote. Now, as I wrote earlier, I like quotes - so I don't object to Tylor in lead. But if - when - this article goes to FAC, you will see this objection appear fast, and unless we adress it then, the article will fail likely on those grounds: Object. Move the quotes to Wikiquote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

focus and sources
I have reversed the last contribution because:
 * It is nice you use talk. While I am grateful for your  comments, I don't think that reverting my entire contribution is contructive. As I don't want a revert war, I hope we reach a compromise here. Let's start. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this talk page:
 * This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.

It has been agreed for a long time that the introduction will be kept brief and the controversial part of the analysis should be kept to a specific section not in the introduction. Some of what has just been added should either be in one of the General articles about bombing in WWII otherwise it will have to be repeated for every booming raid of the war eg: "The bombing of  was a consequence of escalating use of aerial bombing of cities by both sides of the World War II. What was primarily the German tactic in the first years (The Blitz),"


 * I am trying to bring oi to FA status (see Lead). That this subject is controversial is not the issue, it should not stop us from reaching the agreed standards. It is time to revise this 'agreement'. Feel free to NPOV and ajdust my expanded lead, which I'll quote below; however, that it must be expanded is beyond discussion - it is a policy. Besides, I wrote that lead needs expantion few days earlier - and got no replies. Now, I expand the article and get a revert. Not a very cooperative start, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus version
The bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) between February 13th and 15th, 1945 remains one of the most controversial events of World War II. The idea that the bombing of Dresden represented a regrettable or excessive attack is widely held, especially in Germany, however the case that it rises to the level of a war crime is much less accepted.

The bombing of Dresden was a consequence of escalating use of aerial bombing of cities by both sides of the World War II. What was primarily the German tactic in the first years (The Blitz), have became increasingly adapted and used by the Allies in the latter years. Early in the year 1945, the higher Allied Western political-military leadership started to consider how they might aid the advancing Soviet Union with the use of the strategic bomber force. The plan was to bomb Berlin and several other eastern cities in conjunction with the Soviet advance. Eventually, the bombing of Dresno, codenamed by the Allies as Operation Thunderclap, destroyed over 95% of the city's infrastructure and buildings and caused the deaths of up to 35,000 people (approximately 6% of the total city population), and has suceeded in crippling all of the city's industry and communication.

The bombing is perhaps best illustrated by this quote from the British historian Frederick Taylor:


 * "The destruction of Dresden has an epically tragic quality to it. It was a wonderfully beautiful city and a symbol of baroque humanism and all that was best in Germany. It also contained all of the worst from Germany during the Nazi period. In that sense it is an absolutely exemplary tragedy for the horrors of 20th Century warfare . ."

Other version
The bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) between February 13th and 15th, 1945 remains one of the most controversial events of World War II, even after 60 years.

According to British historian Frederick Taylor:
 * "The destruction of Dresden has an epically tragic quality to it. It was a wonderfully beautiful city and a symbol of baroque humanism and all that was best in Germany. It also contained all of the worst from Germany during the Nazi period. In that sense it is an absolutely exemplary tragedy for the horrors of 20th Century warfare . ."

Comments
First, this old lead is too short (see Lead for official policy on how a lead should look like. Second, even after 60 years. is a rather useless phrase - will we change it by year as the time passes? Anybody can count, and the present tense (remains one of...) is, well, present. Third, while I like quotes (and thus I left that one), 9 times out of then Peer Review and FAC requires quotes to be moved to Wikiquote (thus, in fact, this lead has only one-sentence para. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Read the talk histories you will see that there was a vote on this. I agree it should be changed next year to "even after more than 60 years" Which is what it said in so many words last year (after more than 50 years) Philip Baird Shearer 15:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Because of the nature of this article and to stop lots of POV in the very first paragraph it has been agreed by other contributers to keep it brief so that it is not loaded with lots of POV which has sections of the stuff lower down. Philip Baird Shearer 15:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have read the archives - well, most of them. I have yet to see an article that would have to be gutted this way because it would be POVed otherwise. Wiki evolves, and an old vote may no longer be useful - for example, this lead is completly inadequate for Wikipedia 1.0. Also note that Wiki's leads are cited more and more often in media, and again, this fails to be comprehensive. I am not insisting on using my older version (this is why I created the above section), I am not reverting your revert, but I do insinst that we work out a compromise and improve thsi article. Nowhere in Wiki official or semi-official policies is it stated that old version, even supported by a vote, cannot be updated. I appraise you for work and moderation on this page, I can see you put many, many hours into this issue, but as a person with 9 FA, and experience in NPOVing controversial articles to FA status (see Talk:Polish-Soviet War archives, for example) I feel I can help you and other contributors to make this a NPOV FA. Please, let's work together and don't be afraid of change. After all, wiki being wiki, change equals improvement, more often then not :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Varia
The changes are not sources
 * My mistake. My source is artcle in Polish magazine Wprost 7/2005 (20th February), 'Hitler bombarduje Drezno' by Krystyna Grzybowska. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * online version --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless the article is translated into English or quoted by English Historians, I am not sure if it is any use as a source to this article. Is is a historical publication or a popular one? Who is Krystyna Grzybowska? Everything in this article is sourced from either a reputable historian or from a websites which are accessible to everyone. Philip Baird Shearer
 * Good point. Setting aside the language (which I think should not be the issue), I admit it is a 'popular magazine' type of article, with no sources given. As your knowledge of this article seems extensive, I won't push for inclusion of any info you find disputable and we cannot find a source for, however, I'd like to ask that you include all 'reverted' info here, in Talk, so we (or sb else) can attempt to verify or disprove it at a later date. Sounds fair? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

and not all the changes are specific to Dresden. eg:
 * Well, this is a POV. How would you define 'information specific to Dresden (bombing', I'd assume)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There have been books written on the Raids on Dresden. This article is trying to summerise the research. It is already over the recommended sise for an article. Any additional information ought to be specific to the Dresden raids and not pull in information which perhapse should appear in other overview articles like Area bombing etc.Philip Baird Shearer
 * Please quote here the 'non-relevant' parts, so I can include them in other articles and we can forget about them being an issue in this one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "The bombing of Dresden was a consequence of escalating use of aerial bombing of cities by both sides of the World War II." Dresden was not a consequence of this it was a consequence of a decision taken at Yalta.
 * And the Yalta decision was spontaneus and had no precursors whatsoever? Of course it had. Even the very article mentions pre-Yalta debates.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes but they are all specific to the Dresden raids and are not itmes better off in a more general discussion of the Allied Air offensivePhilip Baird Shearer


 * At least one sentence that there were a pre-45 reasons for the raid should be in the article, I feel. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "The bombing of Dresno, codenamed by the Allies as Operation Thunderclap" Source? because AFAIK Thunderclap was shelved in 1944 and this was not a Thunderclap operation.
 * Right, my mistake. Perpahs it should be reworded 'based on the older Operation Thunderclap'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It was not based on the older Thunderclap operaton which was dropped at the planning stage.Philip Baird Shearer
 * Ok, if this is so, I stand corrected. Although I find it difficult to believe it had nothing in common with OThunderclap. Military planning tends to use such older plans as a basis for new ones.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "While the bombing for Dresono remains the single most devasting instance of destruction of Europan city " Source? there were larger bombings and ones which cost more lives. eg Dortmund and Hamburg.
 * You are right. Changing to 'one of the most devastatng...' should solve the problem, don't you think so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There are lots of raids which were bigger and/or more devesting given the size of the target. It is just that this one is better known. Philip Baird Shearer


 * Yes, so I believe the above corrected sentence would be sufficiently POV to strenghten the tiny lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Source that bombing of Britain was terror bombing? What is the definition of terror bombing? (Source please).
 * Wiki article Terror_bombing. First para. For definiton, see lead of that article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The Germans were cerful not to target British cities until after the RAF bombed a German city {Berlin?} (done in retaliation for an accedental bombing of London). After that during the Battle of Britiain, the German stratagy was to bomb London to bring up the RAF fighters, (lucky for the RAF that they had not continued thier anti-aifield stratagy which was winning them the battle). It was not to terrorise the British. Later raids on Coventry and other cities may have been designed to effect a change in British resolve, but I do not think think that they can be termed terror raids like those on Polish refugees. Philip Baird Shearer


 * Do inlcude that in the terror bombing article then, as it stands now, it gives the false impression that it was otherwise. Although, it is very interesting that RAF started bombing civilian targets first - could you point me out to the relevant source? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The Germans bombed London first August 24 1940 but it was not authorised, Once the RAF had bombed Berlin the Germans retaliated and the rest as they say is history.


 * Source for "The Allied retaliation and the strategic bombings of German cities were a logical, if tragic, consequence of the German strategies"?
 * Article I quote. Perhaps it should be reworded to make it clear it was not the ONLY reason, but it (German strategy - well, the whole wore) was definetly one of the reasons for the bombing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The primary reasons for the Dresden attack had nothing to do with German stratagy earlier in the war, the reasons are listed in the reasons section. Philip Baird Shearer


 * "The city population, pre-bombing, was approxmately 630,000, howver, estimates of the extact number of people affected" Source? Besides it makes no sense where it has been inserted.
 * I agree it needs mentioning. (it was at one time but seems to have been deleted at some pointin the past. I think it should be but it shoud be sourced and placed where you put it along with a move of this sentence:There were an unknown number of refugees in the Dresden, so the historians Matthias Neutzner, Götz Bergander and Frederick Taylor have used historical sources and deductive reasoning, to estimate that the number of refugees in the city and surrounding suburbs was around 200,000, or less, on the first night of the bombing from "The case for the bombing being a war crime" Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * All right, so I assume you will add the corrected, improved, sourced sentence soon? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The article I quote, I am sure many other sources corraborate this - it shoudn't be difficult to verify this. It makes perfect sence - I was amazed the article didn't give the number of people affected. Without it, how can we know if the 20-35,000 victims figure is 5%, 50% or 100% percent of the affected (i.e. inhabitants + temporary visitors like refugees) population? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * you are pushing against an open door (see above). Philip Baird Shearer


 * " Also, the city had no fighter cover, as the German fighters have been relocated to defend the Ruhr Area industries". This shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how fighters were allocated for defence: Radar targeted in bands/boxes over western Germany. Just as they were in the Battle of Britain and against the V1s in Britain at the time, not from airfields around specific towns. Also there were day fighters over Dresden when the USAAF attacked.
 * My source is the mentioned article. Please give me a source that there was air cover for Dresden, that it wasn't weakened, and that it did try to intercept the Allied raids. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course it was weakend, the Allied bombing of fule supplies started with a directive in Spetember 1944, RAF De Havilland Mosquito night fighters, and the most importantly the P-51 Mustang had seen to that. But see Himmelbett, Wilde Sau (Wild Boar) - Freelance night fighters, ie not parked round a visual beacon like the Zahme Sau (Tame Boar) fighters, and Kammhuber line. -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The best source for fighters is the controversy over straffing as it appear this was rounds from dogfighting fighters hitting the ground. See Taylor Page 497-498. "There obviously a brief, but possibly intense dogfight around Dresden".


 * All right, then can you add this to the article, so other ppl like me will no that there was, in fact, some for of German fighter cover in place? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You have not sourced your addition to the German response and much of what is given is post war and should be in a different section.
 * Again, this is from the mentioned article. I believe my revisions of sections/title make more sense then the chaos of historical facts that was here before. History (prelude, event, aftermath) and other (controversion) is the logical flow of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You must source it. Second the sections were in the order you mention. prelude, event, results on the ground, results on politics in 1945, and as you put it controversion. Putting post war stuff (like East German/Soviet reactions) into the war sections seems to me to be a retrograde step. As is mixing up the British 1945 section and the "Allied experiences of the attack" which is nothing to do with 1945 but post war and personally I'd remove the secton Philip Baird Shearer
 * To me, the post-war stuff belong to the aftermath section. Atm there is very few info about post-war events, and they are mostly mixed up in the controversy section. This is - at least to me - confusing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a British response to the Bombing not Allied. The US response is not mentioned and is yet to be written.
 * Well, I was just preparing for it, but ok, I have no problem with rv of this section name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "After the bombing, commander Harris has became nicknamed Bomber Harris" Source? He was called that long before.
 * My mistake, I have misread the article. Yes, he was called this before the bombing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "The bombing of Dresden has saved many German Jews, who were saved from the Holocaust and Auschwitz gas chambers, as they were put to work in rebuilding the city." Source? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The mentioned article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Must have a documented source and perhapse it should go into the "Responses to the bombing"->"German section" or perhapse the "Impact of the attack" I'm not sure.

Finally, I'd like to comment that by reverting EVERYTHING I did you removed useful info. Besides the mentioned Dresden population estimate, you also removed number of Allies fighter lots and my addition to literature/culture section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I know that six British planes did not make it back but you must source it if you put in figures. You will note that every quote and figure in the article is sourced. I pondered on leaving some of what you wrote in but it was easier to revert everything as in my opinion there was too much to queery. I have no strong objections to your cultrural additions but perhapse you could consider adding things incrementally instead of in one big chunk. Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you removed it, I ask you to add back the non-controversial parts of my edit. Then we can discuss what remains here. What is your source about those six planes, and will the mentioned article be enough as the source for eight planes? Also, one last thing I forgot: what do you think of the Bomber Harris Trust? Is this controversial as well? See THE BOMBER HARRIS TRUST HOME PAGE - it does prove it exists - and it has quite a lot of interesting links and articles (unfortunatey, the page design is awaful, very difficult to read with all those flashing/moving parts). Oh, and the 'Allied experiences of the attack' section is awful - tiny, bad prose, and it is not sourced - can you improve/remove it as well? :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "Bomber Command casualties were 6 Lancasters lost, with 2 more crashed in France and 1 in England." . "Total effort for the night: 1,406 sorties, 9 aircraft (0.6 per cent) lost." Philip Baird Shearer 19:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Great (another thing to add to the article). Now, the question is: is my source incorrect or could the RAF Bomber Command miss the figures for non-RAF units? Like USAAF? Anyway to check the USAAF loses for that operation?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Needing sources
The following information needs sources before it can be included in the article; with the exception of the first para removed by me, the rest is translated from Polish popular magazine (above), was added by me and removed by Philip: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Allied experiences of the attac: There are anecdotes of the pilots and crew having problems years later. Some had nightmares, some thought they would go to hell as war criminals, some had unshakable visions of the fires and the burning cities. Other veterans, however, doubt these anecdotes, noting that their briefings included details on what they were hitting, and that no one in their recollection had any misgivings about the mission. Bad dreams after battle experience are by no means confined to those who have raided Dresden.
 * While the bombing for Dresono remains the single most devasting instance of destruction of Europan city solely by strategic bombing, it was neither the first, nor the last city affected in such a manner. Germans have been using aerial bombardment and attack on Poland on 1st September of 1939, and continued this tactic during the later battle of Britain. On 18th February 1943, Joseph Goebbels during a parade in Berlin has asked the population in his famous Sportpalast speech: "Do you want a total war?". He received an extactic reply: "Ja.Sieg heil!". The Allied retaliation and the strategic bombings of German cities were a logical, if tragic, consequence of the German strategies.
 * Also, the city had no fighter cover, as the German fighters have been relocated to defend the Ruhr Area industries.
 * Thus the Allies losses have been negligible, only 8 out of 1233 planes that took part in the bombing have been lost.
 * Can you add the UK losses you referenced above (6 planes) and expand on the fighter cover? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * After the end of the war, Dresden has became part of the Soviet occupation zone, and later, a city in the Soviet puppet state of German Democratic Republic. Soviets viewed the Dresden bombing as a valuable propaganda fule. At first, the Soviet propaganda put the blame for the bombing on the German people themselves. On the second anniversary of the bombing, Dresden mayor Walter Weidauer wrote in the '"Sachsische Volkszeitung" newspaper: "destruction of Dresden has been intentionally provoked by the facist villains. [...] Political weakness of the German nation is responsible for this war". Soon afterwards, with the begining of the Cold War, Soviet propaganda found a new target: the Western Allies. The bombing was now called an action of the Anglo-American imperialism, Allied pilots were reffered to as barbarians and even the Dresono reconstruction was delayed, so that the very ruins could serve as a reminder of the western barbarism. Meanwhile, in the Federal Republic of Germany, the bombing was rarely noted, mostly being kept alive by the far-left and far-right (neo-nazis) parties. After the fall of Berlin Wall and reunification of Germany, the bombing has become increasingly popular among the German politics and historians, and is now mentioned as one of the main arguments in the debate that German people have been the victims of the Second World War.
 * After the bombing, commander Harris has became nicknamed Bomber Harris (withhing the Allied press) and Harry the Reaper (by the Axis propaganda). British veterans have formed an organisation to defend the good name of their commander: the Bomber Harris Trust. In 1992 the organisation has erected a monument to Harris, in RAF chapel in St. Clement Davies church in London; the statue has been vandalised a day after the opening ceremony.
 * Note - this seems to be verified on the Bomber Harris Trust homepage. Philip, can we move this back to the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The bombing of Dresden has saved many German Jews, who were saved from the Holocaust and Auschwitz gas chambers, as they were put to work in rebuilding the city.

Discussion of estimates at National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD)
A number of anonymous editors (or at least 3 different IP addresses) have been inserting estimates of the death toll of the bombing in excess of 100,00. I've been reverting the edits (three times over the last three days), and saying that the right place to discuss claims of higher death tolls is here. It is maybe worth a few editors here keeping an eye on eits there. --- Charles Stewart 14:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saved Jews
Refering to this above: "The bombing of Dresden has saved many German Jews, who were saved from the Holocaust and Auschwitz gas chambers, as they were put to work in rebuilding the city." I have never heard or read that Jews from any of the extermination camps or those who hadn´t been transported to the camps yet were put to work in Dresden. What can be said, though, is, that the night attacks of February 13 How many survived no one knows. The Jewish synagogue of Dresden estimates a few dozens. Famous is Victor Klemperer who wrote a diary on his experiences in the Reich, including the bombings. Jesusfreund 07:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * killed an unknown number of Jews among Dresden citizens; they were not allowed to use cellars for shelter during the bombings
 * saved some of their lives, because they were supposed to gather for deportation on February 14; the date had to be cancelled, because the Gestapo building burned out and all their documents on Jews were lost.

Impact of the attack
Currently the article reads:
 * Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometers was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 19 churches, 5 theaters, 50 bank and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, 62 administration buildings as well as factories such as the Ihagee camera works. In total there were 222,000 apartments in the city. 75,000 of them were totally destroyed, 11,000 severely damaged, 7,000 damaged, 81,000 slightly damaged. The city was around 300 square kilometres in area in those days. Although the main railway station was destroyed completely, the railway was working again within a few days.

Can anyone provide a source for these statistics because they vary from the ones I have?

Taylor Page 408 quotes a German police report which gives figures which include:
 * 39 schools, 19 hospitals, 11, churches, 6 chapels, 3 theatres, 50 banks and ins, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, 63 administration buildings, + 647 shops, 64 warehouses, 18 cinimas, 5 cultural buildings, 5 consulates, 1 zoo, 1 water works, 1 railway, 19 postal facilities, 4 tram facilities, 19 ships and barges. Military targets were main cammand post, Wehrmacht library, vet testing centre, and many military hospitals. The main military barracks around the old arsenal was missed.

Taylor Page 409: 200 factories damages, 136 seriously 28 medium and 35 light.

Also:
 * Later British assessments, which were more conservative, concluded that 23 per cent of the city’s industrial buildings were seriously damaged and that 56 per cent of the non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings) had been heavily damaged. Of the total number of dwelling units in the city proper, 78,000 were regarded as demolished, 27,70 temporarily uninhabitable but ultimately repairable, and 64,500 readily repairable from minor damage. This later assessment indicated that 80 per cent of the city’s housing units had undergone some degree of damage and that 50 per cent of the dwellings had been demolished or seriously damaged.

Which gives a total of (78+27.7+64.5)/.8 = 212,750 not 222,000 --Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed." -SV|t 01:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II INSTEAD.